Recent reading

[luzula]

Luckily I dictated this some days ago, before I completely lost my voice from a cold, or whatever it is...

1745 and After, edited by Alistair and Henrietta Tayler (1938)
I decided to check out some primary sources for the '45. There are a fair number online, but of course I decided that I wanted to read Colonel John O'Sullivan's memoirs (strangely his name does not appear in the title of the book). They were not available at any Scandinavian library, and I could only find one copy for sale on the whole internets.

It has a very good introduction, which assumes you already know a lot about the historical period and the people involved. So it was perfect for me, as it contained new-to-me information. O'Sullivan was one of the men who accompanied BPC from France, one of the disliked Irish coterie, in the eyes of many of BPC's Scots followers. But he was an experienced military officer, who had been aide-de-camp to a French Marshal and often performed that job himself because the Marshal spent a lot of time drunk. So he was much more use than most of BPC's companions. Duffy has a lot of respect for him. O'Sullivan and Lord George Murray had a mutual hate-on for each other, so reading this book one does not get a very good impression of Lord George. I'm sure the same would be true in reverse if I were to read Lord George's memoirs, and hello I'm so get your Internet as far as yeah namely italics your bra yeah [I left this hilarious bit in, which happened when I started having a Swedish conversation in the middle of my dictation]. Anyway, one would probably have to read more primary sources in order to judge them both more clearly.

As for the actual memoirs, I enjoyed them a lot! I've never read so unpolished an 18th century text before. O'Sullivan had an erratic grasp on spelling and was certainly no stylist, so the sentences are far more similar to today's writing (and, presumably, the way people spoke back then) than the more convoluted and stylized writing of the 18th century.

Here's a sample: 'Some people were for leaving no garrison, at all, wch wou'd be the most unreasonable thing in the world, for we had several rivers to passe, & were not sure to find them foardable; if they were not, Cimberland cou'd not passe the river yt runs by Carlille either, he cou'd not passe by the bridge being under the lash of the Castle, so yt he'd be obliged to passe by Brampton wch wou'd alwaise give us two days march of 'um; so in all respects, it was better to sacrifise a party then the whole, as it is practiced on like occassions.' A very interesting passage besides, as it explains the reasoning behind the suicide mission of the garrison left behind in Carlisle.

He always writes yt for that, which I've never seen before. [ETA: Ah, this must be the "thorn"-letter previously used for "th", so actually he's writing tht. Thanks to mildred_of_midgard!] He familiarly writes Archy for Lochiel's brother Archibald Cameron, most often called Dr Cameron in period sources. And it's interesting how his spelling reveals pronunciation, as when he writes Reven for Ruthven, and Camel(!) for Campbell. There are also various French-isms, such as zelle for zeal.

O'Sullivan always writes positively/admiringly about BPC, which can partly be explained by the fact that his narrative was commissioned by James III, but also I do think he was sincerely fond of him. Here's a section that throws light on other narratives: BPC is sometimes depicted as having had, at Culloden, a delusional belief in the strength of his own army and that his Highlanders would always win against the English etc. But here is O'Sullivan's take on it: 'Not the least concern appear'd on his face, he has yt talent superiorly, in the greatest concern or denger, its then he appears most chearful & harty, wch is very essential for a Prince or a General, yt incourages very much the army, for every body examins them on those occasions. [Examples of him saying things like Go on my Lads, the day will be ours & we'll want for nothing after.] This & the like discource heartened very much our men, tho' the Prince in the bottom had no great hopes.' Regardless of whether it did or didn't encourage the men, this seems a much likelier scenario than BPC not realizing what their chances were. He obviously had his flaws, but he wasn't that stupid.

I'll put the slashy hurt-comfort bits under a separate cut, in case someone is interested in that and not the other history. *g* If one wants to ship BPC with anyone, O'Sullivan isn't a bad choice, actually! There's a lot of loyalty and hurt/comfort potential in the pairing. (As for BPC:s actual lover during the '45--I just want to tell Clementina Walkinshaw to run…) There's a bit of an age gap, though: BPC is 25 and O'Sullivan 45.

Anyway, I give you O'Sullivan's parting from BPC, when they're on the run after Culloden (he writes of himself in the third person):

'The Prince calls Sullivan a side & tels him, yt he's afeared yt he cou'd never follow him in the mountains, & besides, as he has not highland Cloaths, yt that may discover the Prince, but 'sr,' says Sullivan, I have followed yu until now, & it is not in the most critical & dangerouse moment, yt Il quit yu, what wou'd the world think of it? Never mind what the world thinks, no body knows better than I do, the services yu have rendred me, & no body can suspect your fidellity & attachemt after the proofs yu have given me of them. [BPC explains his plans and gives instructions.] So God be wth you.'

'Sullivan cant containe, he burst out a crying to quit the Prince & to see the danger & misery he was exposed to; the Prince embrasses him, & holds him in his arms for a quarter of an hour, Sullivan talking to him as much as hi tears & his sobs cou'd permit him, praying him for God sake, if he had the misfortune to fall in the enemis hands never to own what he was.'

There are other contemporary accounts saying things like 'The Prince's parting from Sullivan was like tearing the heart from the body.' Also a charming hurt/comfort passage where Sullivan is sick and BPC 'has no thought but for Sullivan', 'remains continually by him', and then later shoots a bird and makes him chicken soup from scratch. Awww.

Well, I am hardly likely to start writing fic about them, but obviously I could not pass this slash fodder by without mentioning it. Also, I do wonder about all this unashamed crying--it's a rather different view from Broster's male characters who seem to consider it unmanly and Not To Be Done. Was she wrong about that? Or did different nationalities/subcultures have different norms?

Comments

[sovay]

Also, I do wonder about all this unashamed crying--it's a rather different view from Broster's male characters who seem to consider it unmanly and Not To Be Done.

My first thought is the difference between the past and later images of it.

The chicken soup is adorable.

[sanguinity]

My first thought is the difference between the past and later images of it.

Mine, too. It's always interesting with historical fiction, to try to untangle the mores of the era written about, and the era written from. And of course constructs of masculinity have changed so much over centuries and cultures.

[luzula]

Now I want a sort of timeline of attitudes towards men crying...

[regshoe]

That would be a very useful and interesting timeline!

[chestnut_pod]

Yt really is quite a lot of crying for when one is actively on the lamb!

[luzula]

Oh, I doubt they were in danger all the time! There was absolutely time to hug someone and cry for fifteen minutes... : )

[sanguinity]

I really enjoy getting to see his unedited language; it's absolutely fascinating. And apropos of nothing at all, I now see where the French embrasser comes from -- presumably the same place the English "embrasses"/embraces comes from.

[luzula]

Yes! I feel the same. I'm so glad the editors didn't try to "fix" it.

[garonne]

This was so interesting. And also very cool to see an unedited 18th century text! It's frustrating how many authors/historians use modern spelling, replace abbreviations and so on when preserving a text. I want to see how it was originally written!

[luzula]

I've read a fair amount of digitized published 18th century texts, which were presumably edited by the 18th c publisher. And yeah, of course those are different from modern texts in capitalization, abbreviations, contractions, some spelling, long s, etc. But O'Sullivan's text is different in that presumably no 18th c publisher has been at it. It was in the Stuart Papers, so I assume it was hand-written, and the 20th c editors seem to have done a great job in preserving the way he wrote.

[regshoe]

Argh, I remember running across a few references to the Taylers in my research reading and not being able to find their books at all. Well done for tracking down the one copy on the internet, and thank you for writing it up! :)

Yes, the unpolished 18th-century style is really interesting to see—I've thought so from the brief quotes from similar writings I've come across in history books, and a whole memoir of it must be invaluable. Good point about it probably reflecting how people spoke, much better than published/polished texts would do.

Camel(!) for Campbell

XD

The account of Charles's thoughts and behaviour before Culloden is especially interesting—and I note that Broster seems not to have had that perspective, but to agree with the more conventional account. Yes, that 'putting on a brave face for the men' sort of thing seems very consistent with what I've gathered of his personality.

That is an excellent slashy hurt/comfort bit. Chicken soup! :D

And I hope you feel better soon! <3

[luzula]

I'm a little better, though still sick! Alas, I have no one to personally make me chicken soup... : ) I've had long Zoom meetings all weekend (annual meeting of my environmental organization) which at least means that my hands have partly recovered (less typing).

O'Sullivan writes "Camel" interchangeably with the Frenchified "Camelle"!

Broster can't have consulted this narrative, at least, since it wasn't published until 1938. Also, after reading this I feel better about Keith crying so much in the Carlisle story...

[osprey_archer]

This is sort of an in-between point between 1745 and Broster in the 1920s, but in 19th century texts, men will often say something like "It may be unmanly to weep, but..." and then detail how they wept over parting from a friend/receiving a letter from home/reading a really good poem. It's like weeping is allowed as long as they throw in that quick acknowledgment that SOME PEOPLE (churls who lack their noble gentlemanly sensibilities, probably) might consider it unmanly.

[luzula]

Thanks, interesting input! I guess most places/times don't have just one model of masculinity, but several different variations.

Oh hey, I just discovered this: the British timeline of weeping, it exists!

[osprey_archer]

Oh, thank you for linking that! That's a super interesting article - a good reminder that attitudes toward public displays of emotion are always complicated. Even in a society that is usually pro-weeping, there's always a Margery Kempe who pushes it Too Far.